Thank you for the clarifications Med. That all seems good.
Yours,
Joel
On 9/3/2021 8:38 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Hi Joel,
Thank you for the review.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Joel Halpern via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org]
Envoyé
We have many times had WGs whose goals included "produce RFC to document
have currently works.? The way we make that stick process-wise
historically is to write that into the charter. Since the IESG signs
off on the charter, generally later ADs understand and work with the
agreement.
Wheth
Are you really simultaneously saying
1) As far as you know, the existing draft is not being used
2) You do not want the working group to work on the replacement a number
of operators need
3) And you oppose the AD sponsoring the work
You are not even saying you don't like it, as you also say you
,
Joel
On 11/4/2019 9:48 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On Nov 4, 2019, at 6:39 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
If the authors want to publish it as an RFC so as to comment on other RFCs,
they could approach the Independent Stream Editor. That sort of publication is
one of the explicit purposes of the
If the authors want to publish it as an RFC so as to comment on other
RFCs, they could approach the Independent Stream Editor. That sort of
publication is one of the explicit purposes of the Independent Stream.
Yours,
Joel
On 11/4/2019 9:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 5
The conclusion earlier work on congestive response routing reached was
that one needed to pin the specific routing decision until the selected
path became infeasible.
Yours,
Joel
On 12/4/18 10:59 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
Hi, Stewart,
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:07 AM Stewart Bryant
.
Please see
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg04792.html
We did not received any objection based on this.
Thanks,
Tianran
-Original Message-
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 8:25 AM
To: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
Subject
Thank you Jimmy.
While I disagree, I think this states the case clearly enough for it to
be up to the working group and relevant ADs.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/15/18 11:40 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
Hi Joel,
Thanks a lot for your review comments.
Regarding your first problem, I don't think this draf
There seem to be two separate issues.
The first issue is what information from BGP would one like to correlate
with the traffic flows. I understand that there is useful information.
The motivation given in the draft seems to apply to more cases than I
thought, but still it is of limited appli
randy, noting that the IETF has trouble with the geo-tagging of its
addresses does not seem to have ANYTHING to do with demonstrating how
widely used the geo-communities are.
If you want to make that case, make it. But don't bring up red herrings.
As you note, it is up to the WG, not to me, w
Randy, I did suggest that one would update the offline data.
My point was that the draft claims taht extreme timliness is needed.
For IP block geolocation, timeliness on the order of a day (much shorter
than the several days before the IETF when the IETF block gets turned on
somewhere.)
Thus,
Thank you for that pointer. It is informative.
I looked at a number of the entries (trying to pick larger ISPs as more
likely to need more information.)
What i see is some ISPs doing what Randy Bush mentioned, marking
regions. I see a few ISPs that explicitly mark country (or in one case
city
of a traffic flow. The
procedure for the exporter to get the community informaiton of a traffic
flow is the same as it gets the AS information.
Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com
*From:* Joel M
This was a requested early review. You folks can do as you deem best.
From where I sit, it seems odd. Most well-known communities do not fit
the pattern of representing groups of sources or groups of destinations.
I presume the intent here is for this to be useful in some AS other than
the on
Let me ask a different version of Carlos (and maybe Randy's) point.
If the IETF as a community objected to the content of this draft,
presumably there would ahve been significant dissent during the IETF
last call.
It looked to me like the consensus in support of this was rough but clear.
More
15 matches
Mail list logo